SCS COMMENTARY: BILL OF RIGHTS
SCS COMMENTARY: BILL OF RIGHTS
This turned out to be a long one, so apologies for that, but it is an important subject, as we have the opportunity to formulate what the UK Bill of Rights will look like via responding en masse to an ongoing 'consultation' that ends on March 8th.
I try to go through the 123 page document that goes with this consultation, and point out the fundamental errors, and some of the dangers they are proposing.
I can drift a little due to the time of the video, and I always do these things in one take, so forgive any possible elements where you may not quite understand what I'm referring to, as there are times when I am filling in gaps from the on screen clauses.
This is both a serious problem in the way they intend to formulate the Bill of Rights, and an opportunity for us to make our opposition heard, as well to advance what this fundamental document should look like, so don't forgo this basic duty.
Links:
Minds @paulbuckingham
Gab - https://gab.com/SisyphusComplexSolution
Interested in sponsoring or contacting the channel : sisyphuscomplexsolution@protonmail.com
Interested in ICPR 1200 Limited services : director@icpr1200.com
ICPR 1200 Limited
http://www.icpr1200.com/
Bill of Rights [1688]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
Human Rights Act Reform: a Modern Bill of Rights - Consultation
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act-reform/consultation/
Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill Of Rights – Proposal
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act-reform/supporting_documents/humanrightsreformconsultation.pdf
The Human Rights Act 1998
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
UK Magnitsky-style sanctions
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/magnitsky-sanctions/
European Convention on Human Rights
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
Brighton Declaration of 2012
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/2012_Brighton_FinalDeclaration_ENG.pdf
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Threat to Life notifications
https://greatermanchesterscb.proceduresonline.com/pdfs/ttl_guidance.pdf
A soldier s guide to the law and armed conflict
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/619906/2017-04714.pdf
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/overview-geneva-conventions.htm
Osman v UK
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/osman-v-uk.php
The Rape Of Britain
https://urbanscoop.news/therapeofbritain/
The United Nations Global Compact for Migration
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8459/CBP-8459.pdf
UK “reforming” human rights law…compulsory vaccines on the horizon?
https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/08/uk-reforming-human-rights-law-compulsory-vaccines-on-the-horizon/
-
0/2000
-
In response to "you better write down some comments after this episode..." :) Ok, so, the right to family life is important, because the sick government f...s would not be refraining themselves from taking our children as their please, if there wasn't for this specific right. It basically ensures that a child cannot be taken by social services from their parents (unless there is a crime involved) and ensures no government interference in one's family relationships. It's sad that it has to be regulated by law, it should be common sense (common law, the same way that the right to life is). As for the differentiation regarding rights and responsibilities: well, responsibility is a duty to enjoy one's rights, one does not go without the other. However, not all responsibilities are legally regulated, they are owed to people by society. Questions? ;)
2 likes-
The context of the Governments complaint around 'right to family life' is how this is abused in relation to whether someone can be deported or not. I see what you are saying in terms of the Government not being able to take away children etc. but surely that would an unlawful act, rather than a fundamental 'right' per se. It would then muddy the waters if the parents were abusive to the child (genuinely so, and not due to political discretion), because if this were to be a fundamental 'right' then by default, protecting the child would become more difficult. Essentially I'm looking toward fundamental rights being ones that cannot be infringed upon under any circumstances, as opposed to more nuanced issues that would be subject to legislation, criminal law etc. I might be misunderstanding the definition of rights vs. responsibilities case you make here. How does society owe an individual responsibility? Who would decide that? The perspective I can understand is that fundamental rights are inalienable to the individual, and that Government may not infringe upon them, and then the individual plays a role of responsibility to themselves and then to their wider family / community (society) based on what the society deems to responsible through their actions, and within the limitations of the law, i.e. society will demonstrate the boundaries. In many ways, yes, you are correct that they go hand in hand, but it still remains for the individual to be able to influence the societal boundaries based upon evidencing a benefit, rather than the other way around. Essentially, the opportunity is open for the individual to present the benefit, but it is not an obligation, so therein lays the key difference. Does that make sense? :-)
2 likes-
Makes perfect sense, yes, apart from the fact I wasn't trying to excuse society based on individual rights or vice versa, tbh, I am now confused where I was aiming at with it :) but something along the lines that all responsibility does not need to be regulated, because it is anyway derived from the rights of others (based on their individual rights, even if they are group-differentiated). I agree the rights would be protected better if they are basic/simple, as trying to micromanage things leads to always leaving loopholes in law which lead to decisions being brought to the detriment of the right holder. Btw, did you know there was even a term in law describing individuals as right holders, and governments as duty bearers? Sounds great in theory, but we are seeing in practice this is becoming exactly the opposite.
2 likes-
Absolutely right. Those within Governments have determined to forget that they are defined as servants and bestowed upon themselves the title of master. Here I would probably get off subject and go into my independent candidate proposition, to move away from the failed party system, and lead toward a model of governance rather than Government. :-)
2 likes
-
-
-
-
57:51
Sisyphus Complex Solution
3 months agoSCS EPISODE 145. SHIP OF FOOLS
663 -
DVR
Robert Gouveia
1 hour agoTrump Goes to SCOTUS! Judge CAVES on DOGE? Fani Willis Not Happy!
10K2 -
20:41
Stephen Gardner
1 hour ago🔥You Won't BELIEVE What JUST Happened To Don Trump Jr.!!
4.55K41 -
1:06:40
Donald Trump Jr.
5 hours agoThe Left is Taking one L After Another, Live with Michael Knowles | Triggered Ep. 217
76.6K61 -
47:17
Kimberly Guilfoyle
5 hours agoWoke Gets DOGE’d, Live with AJ Rice & Jarrett Stepman | Ep. 197
55.5K29 -
20:11
Candace Show Podcast
3 hours agoBecoming Brigitte: Candace Owens x Xavier Poussard | Ep 6
106K234 -
LIVE
Dr Disrespect
8 hours ago🔴LIVE - DR DISRESPECT - ELDEN RING DLC - REVENGE
2,944 watching -
LIVE
LFA TV
1 day agoThe End of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance | TRUMPET DAILY 2.17.25 7PM
306 watching -
LIVE
2 MIKES LIVE
4 hours ago2 MIKES LIVE #181 Deep Dive Monday!
142 watching -
LIVE
Quite Frankly
5 hours ago"Low Tide at The Pier: Munich Tears, World Gov Summit, More..." 2/17/25
1,226 watching
4 Comments